AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge vide order dt.
4.6.2001 has confirmed the order of Board of Revenue which has reversed the finding arrived at by SDO and confirmed by the RAA.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights against his father Sh. Narain and brother Sh. Banni @
Banne Singh in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun, District Sawai Madhopur on the ground that in Samvat 2010 Sh. Narain partitioned all his
agricultural land in favour of his five sons in equal shares and handed over the possession of the same separately to all his five sons for cultivation as
sub tenants and since then all the five brothers have been cultivating the said land separately. Thus, the petitioner was in cultivatory possession as sub
tenant of land wich came in his share i.e. whole of land pertaining no.s 489, 22, 757, 748 and western half of the land pertaining to khasra no.888 and
therefore, he became entitled to be recorded as khatedari tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. That, respondent no.4 Banni Singh
@ Banne Singh: one of the sons of Sh. Narain got a gift deed registered in his favour from late Sh. Narain Singh on 25.8.1996 in respect of the land
pertaining to khasra no.22 (whole) and 888 (half) which was in share and possession of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer decreed the suit in
favour of the petitioner vide its judgment and decree dt. 12.5.1978.
Counsel for the appellant Mr. Mathur has taken us to the issues framed by the first authority which reads as under:-
1- vk;k vkjkth eqrftdk en ua01 okn i= ukjk;.k ykydh ekS:lh Hkwfe Fkh vkSj bl ij ukjk;.k yky cgsfl;r [kkrsnkj dk’rdkj dkfct FkkA oknh
2- vk;k okgeks Qjhdsu esa vkjkth eqrfnfo;k dk rdkLekla0 2010 esa lgLo rudhg en ua03 okn i= gks x;k FkkA oknhA
3- vk;k vkjkft;kr eqrnkfo;k en ua04 dks oknh la02010 lscjkcj f’kdeks dk’rdkj dk gSfl;r ls dk’r djrk pyk vk jgk gS vkSj mls vkj Vh ,DV ds
rgr [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;sA oknh
4- vk;k ukjk;.k yky eqrcQks esa vkjkth eqrftdk en ua04 dks fnukad 25-8-66 dks ,d o['kh’kukek ogd izfroknh ua02 mlds cgdkus ij djk fy;k vkSj mldk
nkos ij D;k izHkko gS oknh
5- nknjlh D;k gksxh
He further contended that after considering the evidence on record and while considering the issue no.4, the first authority recorded the finding as
under:-
VªkalQj vkWQ izkiVhZ ,DV dh /kkjk 92 ds vUrxZr dksbZ Hkh nkui= rc gh ls iw.kZ ekuk tkosxk tc fd nku dh tkus okyh tk;nkn dk dCtk nkui= }kjk
nku x`fgrk dks gLrkUrfjr dj fn;k tkosA ge mij lkQ dj pqds gS fd [k0 ua0 22 iwjs Hkkx ij ,oa [kljkuk ua0 888 ds 1@2 Hkkx ij oknh lwjtey dk la02010 ls
vkt rx yxkrkj dCtk pyk vk jgk gSA rks fQj bu uEcjksa dk nku nkrk }kjk nku x`fgrk ds fgr esa bZ0,Dl A ds vUnj dCtk ns nsus dh ckr xyr fy[kh xbZ
gSA pwafd nkok gktk dh tqeyk rudhgky ogd oknh o f[kykQ izfroknh dk fcy fMØh djkj ikrk gSA
The same has been confirmed by RAA.
He contended that Board of Revenue has committed serious error in disturbing the finding arrived at by both the authorities in violation of Section
224 read with Section 222 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
He contended that learned Single Judge has also committed serious error in confirming the order of Board of Revenue and reversing the order of
SDO as well as RAA.
It is also contended that the question in this case is whether the finding recorded on gift deed which created right in favour of the party can be
disturbed by the Revenue court.
Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Board of
Revenue while considering the matter observed as under:-
5- bl izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa us xokgksa ds c;ku djk;s gS rFkk nLrkost is’k fd;s gSA v/khuLFk nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us izn’kZ&17 o
izn’kZ 27 ij fopkj djrs gq, ;g fu""d""kZ fydkyk gS fd ;g Hkwfe iSr`d gSA izn’kZ 17 ukjk;.k dk c;ku gS tks mlus fdlh nwljs U;k;ky; esa fn;k Fkk
,oa izn’kZ 27 ,d pdcUnh dh jktLo vfHkys[k dh izfrfyfi gSA izn’kZ 27 ls ;g Li""V ugha gksrk gS fd ;g leLr Hkwfe iSr`d FkhA blesa ukjk;.k ds
firk dk uke ntZ gS ijUrq dsoy ek= bl nLrkost ls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh Fkh blds fy;s fdlh tekcUnh ds bUnzkt is’k
gksuk t:jh Fks vkSj ,slkh dksbZ tekcUnh is’k ugha dh xbZ ftlesa ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh crkbZ xbZ gksA oSls Hkh ukjk;.k ds ikl ;g Hkwfe
iSr`d tc ekuh tk;sxh fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk/lk ds nknk dh Fkh vkSj ukjk;.k ds firk ds i’pkr mlds ikl vkbZA blds vfrfjDr izn’kZ 17 ukjk;.k ds c;ku dh
udy gS D;ksa fd ukjk;.k dh e`R;q kSjku nkok gks xbZ Fkh blfy;s ;g nLrkost is’k fd;k x;k Fkk bl nLrkost dks iHkh LFkku ij ;g ugha dgk fd ;g Hkwfe iSr`d FkhA cfYd mlus ;g dgk gS fd ;g tehu esjh gS pkgs fdlh dks Hkh nwa vkSj eSa bls cUuh dks ns pqdk
gwaA vU; fdlh xokg us Li""V :i ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh Fkh cUuh dk c;ku gqvk ftldk ;g dFku gS fd mls ;kn ugha fd dksbZ
tehu dk cVokjk gqvk Fkk ijUrq mlds lkeus dksbZ cVokjk ugha gqvk gS mlds vuqlkj ;g tehu mldks mlds firk us nh Fkh bl ckr ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd lEor
2010 esa blds ikap fgLls vyx vyx dj fn;s x;s ijUrq bls ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 35 o""kZ ls ikap HkkbZ bls vyx vyx dk’r djrs Fks vkSj bldk yxku
firkth dks nsrs Fks ft;kyky us jftLVªh izekf.kr dh gSA fl) us bl tehu ij cUUkh dh dk’r crkbZ gSA /kuhjke us Hkh bl ckjs esa dqN ugha dgk FkkA
oLrqr% bl ckr dh dksbZ 'kgknr ugha gS fd ; tehu iSr`d FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa ukjk;.k dks ;g vf/kdkj Fkk fd ;g Hkwfe fdlh dks Hkh ns nsA tgka rd lEor
2010 esa cVokjs dk iz’u gS ;fn dksbZ ikfjokfjd le>kSrk dj Hkh fy;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj yMdksa dks Hkwfe ij vyx vyx dCtk Hks ns fn;k x;k gS rks
mldks caVokjs dh laKk ugha nh tk ldrhA caVokjk dk;ns ls fd;k tkuk pkfg;s FkkA ;fn yMdksa gS rks mldh jftLVªh gksuk vko’;d Fkh vkSj jkT;
ljdkj dks mlesa i{kdkj gksuk vko’;d gSA bl izdkj dk dksbZ caVokjk fjdkMZ ij ugha gSA blfy;s ;fn dksbZ Hkh Qsfeyh vjUtSesUV fd;k x;k Fkk rks
og ukjk;.k ds iq=ksa esa dksbZ vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha djrk gSA
7- tgka rd nku i= dk iz’u gS blds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh i{k fookn ugha djrk gS fd ;g nku i= ukjk;.k us fd;k vkSj jftLVMZ djk;kA bl nku i= dks ;fn
voS/k ?kksf""kr djkuk gS rks mlds fy;s fnokuh U;k;ky; esa nkok djuk iMsxkA jktLo U;k;ky; esa bl lEU/k esa dksbZ vkns’k ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA bl
nku i= dks iw.kZrk voS/k vFkkZr okbZn¼ok;M½ ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS blfy;s blds lEcU/k esa fnokuh U;k;ky; esa gh pkjktksbZ dh tk ldrh gSA
He contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly confirmed the order of Board of Revenue.
We have heard both the parties.
In our considered opinion, the issue of partial gift deed introduced by revenue court has in fact being a novel idea which has been supported by the
counsel for the appellant. In our considered opinion, revenue court has no jurisdiction to disturb the gift deed. In that view of the matter, we are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge. No case is made out for interference.
The appeal stands dismissed.